JCPOA 2.0: Trump's deal risks undercutting efforts against the Iranian threat - editorial

The United States and Iran appear to be on the verge of a new agreement, with reports indicating a potential signing in Geneva this week. The proposed framework, according to leaked details, could involve a memorandum of understanding to initiate 60 days of technical negotiations. It might also encompass the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and discussions aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear program and managing its enriched uranium.

“

What’s worse than giving Iran $6 billion? Giving it two $6 billions.

However, the potential deal has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Israeli officials who have been excluded from the talks. They express concern that the framework, if accurate, represents a "disaster." While the US administration reportedly assures Israel that President Trump understands its security concerns, the specifics of the reported deal raise alarms. An MoU, while potentially useful for locking in obligations, could become a dangerous stepping stone for concessions before critical issues are resolved.

“

If those reports are true, Trump’s Iran framework is a disaster.

The editorial board of The Jerusalem Post argues that a 60-day negotiation period is insufficient in the volatile Middle East, allowing Iran to alter the situation on the ground. Concerns are also raised about Iran potentially "booby-trapping tunnel entrances" and preparing to renege on agreements once US forces in the region are reduced. The exclusion of Iran's ballistic missile program from the core bargain is seen as a significant weakness, as these missiles, along with regional proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, pose a direct threat to Israel.

“

An MoU can be useful when it locks in firm obligations. It is dangerous when it becomes the price of admission for concessions before the hard questions are answered.

Furthermore, the prospect of releasing approximately $12 billion in financial relief to Iran is deeply troubling. Critics contend that even if the funds are contingent on Iranian performance, this move is twice as dangerous as previous asset freezes. They argue that such financial lifelines would enable the Iranian regime to rebuild, rearm, stabilize its rule, reward security forces, and restore its proxy networks, which have been targeted by the US and Israel. This financial injection, they believe, would betray the Iranian people who have been told the free world understands the nature of their regime.

“

A deal that speaks about nuclear material while failing to confront the delivery systems and regional networks built around it cannot credibly claim to guarantee Israeli security.